My colleague and I have finished an album which we're hoping to put out via Spotify,
iTunes et al, but before we do we could do with knowing where we stand regarding some
samples we've used.

All are spoken word samples which we have taken from
various archive radio and TV broadcasts. A couple are anonymous, as in we don't know the
identity of the person speaking - these are respectively a "1940s" BBC announcer talking
about london buses and an unknown female chef giving a recipe for smoked haddock soup.

However a couple feature two very well known current TV presenters, whose voices
would be instantly recognisable to most people.

So the question is, do we need
to gain permission from said people before putting our music out commercially? Whilst
obviously we know that sampling recorded music needs permission, we haven't been able to
find out if the same applies to spoken word samples.

Thanks for the
response, but unless I'm missing something, that article refers to commercial recordings -
ie songs that have been released on a record label. The samples I'm referring to are radio
announcements or things Tv presenters have said, which have never been released
commercially.

So if for example we sample a BBC weatherman saying "dry with
sunny periods tomorrow" or Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear saying "Cor - look at the bodywork
on that!", do we need to contact their agents? (they're not the actual samples btw!)

Quote paulprogram:Could I have a
copy of the haddock soup recipe please?

This is the sort of unhelpful replies you can expect to find
here, although the others are quite right, in that you do need clearance.

However, having gone through clearance with EMI as a test, it just is not worth it.
They wanted 50% writers credits and 100% mechanicals, just for 2% of warbling from a 70's
soul singer who did not see a penny of it. We agreed to that because we just wanted the
record out there to increase the gigs for that artist.

If you are a label in
the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can guarantee you won't be in
court because they only look for hits and the chance of money. Admittedly, this could
happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that is extreme and
unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on your way.

Many famous artists use samples and people like Will i am really need to be
careful, and this is probaly what is scaring you. We got our own back by not registering
the track with PPL or PRS. They will whistle for their royalties and see nothing and
neither will we, but the track is a dancefloor legend now for that artist and has often
been played on late night Radio 1. It was worth it for the bookings.

If you
are a label in the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can guarantee
you won't be in court because they only look for hits and the chance of money.
Admittedly, this could happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that
is extreme and unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on
your way.

Agree with this
totally, don't fear these big companies. Yes they can shut down a small label if they
want to, but it will probably cost them more in lawyer fees than any sort of compensation
they will win.

Quote:

Many famous artists use samples and people like Will i am really need to be
careful, and this is probaly what is scaring you. We got our own back by not registering
the track with PPL or PRS. They will whistle for their royalties and see nothing and
neither will we, but the track is a dancefloor legend now for that artist and has often
been played on late night Radio 1. It was worth it for the bookings.

Asking for clearance is asking for trouble.
You are admitting to using it and bringing it to their attention and they will ask for
obscene amounts of compensation. Do it, deny it and make sure the record label has no
assets to lose if things get nasty. Most people get away with it.

Another possible approach in this sort of case is to go down the sample-a-like route and
hire a voice artist to emulate the original recordings, like Lemon Jelly using Enn Reitel
and John Standing. You just have a clear fee to pay and the owenership is all yours!

Of course, it could be a bit late in the day if your production is all done and
dusted...

Quote atechnogirl:If you are a
label in the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can guarantee you
won't be in court because they only look for hits and the chance of money. Admittedly,
this could happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that is extreme
and unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on your way.

Exactly. Unless
you expect major commercial success 'publish and be damned' just stick it out there.

if the big boys comes after you with threats (unlikely unless you have a hit) the
worse that can most likely happen is you end up signing over the rigths to them.

And even if they get wind of what you've done and come after you without having had a
hit (unlikely where's the profit?), think of the publicity you'd gain anyway and press
release opportunities arising from it, so you win that way too!

Quote atechnogirl:If you are a
label in the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can guarantee you
won't be in court because they only look for hits and the chance of money. Admittedly,
this could happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that is extreme
and unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on your way.

Exactly. Unless
you expect major commercial success 'publish and be damned' just stick it out there.

if the big boys comes after you with threats (unlikely unless you have a hit) the
worse that can most likely happen is you end up signing over the rigths to them.

And even if they get wind of what you've done and come after you without having had a
hit (unlikely where's the profit?), think of the publicity you'd gain anyway and press
release opportunities arising from it, so you win that way too!

Recordings obtained
from BBC broadcasts, or from any other broadcasters, is inherently copyrighted and
permission should be obtained from the rights holders if you want to use exerpts in your
own matrial.

Sound On Sound supports the rights of copyright holders and
absolutely does not condone any 'advice' in this thread or elsewhere suggesting that it is
acceptable to abuse copyright in any way.

I agree with you Hugh, but the reality is that many up and coming producers simply get
robbed when it comes to royalties if they toe the line and clear. Can you blame them for
not doing so, having seen my example? Certainly in the underground scene it goes on all
the time. Copyright is there to protect US (the artists and producers), but does it
really, or does it protect the record company? In my case the singer who we used was
never mentioned in the publishing but she is still alive and we promoted her in a big way.
The person who was the writer had been dead for ages and I wonder if his estate saw a
penny. Somehow, I doubt it, and that is why I prefer not to clear anymore.

I changed my post since you replied Hugh, but I think for the scene I work in that being a
little hermit under a stone probably works better. The reason for this is that we can't
afford lawyers and prefer just to play stuff on the dancefloor for fun. I wish it could
be fairer.

However, having gone through clearance with EMI as a test, it just is not worth it.

well - it's the law........ so
worth it or not !!.. I spent 11 years as an artist on EMI and left them unrecouped (they
gave me close to a million quid)....... more often than not they were a very very fair
lot. They look after their artists very nicely ------ although they can be real jerks!!!
hahaha

Quote atechnogirl:

They wanted 50% writers credits and 100% mechanicals, just for 2% of warbling
from a 70's soul singer who did not see a penny of it. We agreed to that because we just
wanted the record out there to increase the gigs for that artist.

The art of negotiation is a valuable one. That's
what connections are all about!! Should have asked me . How do you
know the 70s singer didn't see a penny? surely

a) the label is allowed to
make back it's investment - which may have been into 7 figures.
b) if the artist had
recouped they would have seen their amount via the MCPS and the label accountability. Of
course - there is a different argument about the fair structure of recoup but that is an
entirely different argument. You cannot put all arguments into one case!!

Quote atechnogirl:

If
you are a label in the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can
guarantee you won't be in court because they only look for hits and the chance of money.
Admittedly, this could happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that
is extreme and unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on
your way.

1) that
attitude is the ENEMY of ALL music. Even the underground. However, I understand why you
think it....
2) I doubt you'd get a personal indemnity against such a thing. You
would STILL be liable even if you wound up the company. You'd also be struck off the
companies house register and unable to get more than a basic tax status. Careful when
winding up a company!!

Quote
atechnogirl:

Many famous artists use samples and people like Will
i am really need to be careful, and this is probaly what is scaring you. We got our own
back by not registering the track with PPL or PRS. They will whistle for their royalties
and see nothing and neither will we, but the track is a dancefloor legend now for that
artist and has often been played on late night Radio 1. It was worth it for the bookings.

Not registered with PPL and PRS
starves you of other income! Its a double edged sword.

I get why you have
these opinions but try to imagine being on the other side of it!! You cannot choose your
laws and rules to obey if you want any chance of fairness in business!!

I don't understand your arguement atechnogirl... if all you are interested in doing is
"play stuff on the dancefloor for fun" then why do you have such a problem giving the
copyright owners 50% writers credits and 100% mechanicals?

If you're indeed
in it for credit or profit, then why not use royalty free samples or skip sampling
altogether?

If your track relies so heavily on a sample that you can't
replace it, then shouldn't the copyright holder have a share in it? If that's the case,
if it weren't for them, you wouldn't have a track.

Regarding the artist holding
the copyright vs the record company holding the copyright, that's a totally different
matter. However, in the cases where the record company does own the copyright (especially
before the digital era when self-publishing was extremely difficult), I'd bet my shirt
it's because they are the ones that fronted all the MONEY in the first place, not only to
make the recording, but also for promotion, distribution, etc. In other words, without
the record company, you probably would never even have heard of that artist.

I'm not saying that the record companies are always right, but the record companies took
the financial risk and this is their reward. And that does benefit the artist because it
gives the record companies a) incentive to financially back an artist and do a good job
promoting them, and b) further capital for funding future artists.

As it
stands, the law is what it is. And as Hugh said, if you want to change the law, do it by
petition, not by breaking it.

Having got very frustrated trying to quote Narco (who I now imagine to be either Rodger
Daltry or Paul McCartney) I can confirm that the lack of the name of that female '70's
singer on the contract is very obvious by her absence.

My contribution
here, was not to be confrontational but to provide an example of reality to someone who
wondered if they could use this or that on their itune release.

I would also
like to add that being staunch is very admirable, but I have had to cope with first day
releases totally ripped and distributed on every rapidshare site on the net before they
make any money on legitimate sites. It is just the way it is, and the producers must make
their money by live gigs. Welcome to 2012, and yes, I run a record company too.

I would
also like to add that being staunch is very admirable, but I have had to cope with first
day releases totally ripped and distributed on every rapidshare site on the net before
they make any money on legitimate sites. It is just the way it is, and the producers must
make their money by live gigs. Welcome to 2012, and yes, I run a record company too.

Well that's a piracy issue,
not a label issue. But by not playing 100% by the former rules it's harder to complain
about the pirate element!!

Hhah on being Daltry or Macca. I think they
have made EMI and themselves rather more than I.

Oh my word Scramble! I do have something to add on the forum. I have a record company, I
understand how to recoup royalties and I work with several musicians who earn their living
through music. Your pop up comment is probably why some threads have been shut. I do
react to trolling.

Quote atechnogirl:Having got
very frustrated trying to quote Narco (who I now imagine to be either Rodger Daltry or
Paul McCartney) I can confirm that the lack of the name of that female '70's singer on the
contract is very obvious by her absence.

My contribution here, was not to be
confrontational but to provide an example of reality to someone who wondered if they could
use this or that on their itune release.

I would also like to add that being
staunch is very admirable, but I have had to cope with first day releases totally ripped
and distributed on every rapidshare site on the net before they make any money on
legitimate sites. It is just the way it is, and the producers must make their money by
live gigs. Welcome to 2012, and yes, I run a record company too.

I think you are getting very close to the
truth here, possibly a bit too much for some people.

My record company ignore
samples unless they are obvious, and they are actually quite a big company with a lot to
lose. Why? I don't know, they think its worth the risk and I'm not going to argue with
them.

I think the essential point is that music doesn't need any more
wallflowers, so if you absolutely need to do something then do it. Punk bands used to
steal their guitars remember. That does make you a criminal its true but real artists
aren't bound by the same rules as mere mortals.

I'm someone who plays fair and works on a
basis of morality and integrity ( and despite common perception you'll find that the
majority of the biz is like that..... It's the few twats that make life crappy in music).
I deal with majors, indies, DIYers, corporate and ultra artists. There are idiots in all
areas...... You can't tar all label people as dicks any more than you can say all artists
are to be trusted. I've cleared more. Samples and licences than most will deal with in a
lifetime..... And yet I've also managed to get the "right" deals by not throwing ones
proverbial toys out of e pram when one doesn't get ones own way !! ?.. You give
a little, you gets a lot....

I'm someone who plays fair and works on a
basis of morality and integrity ( and despite common perception you'll find that the
majority of the biz is like that.....

By your posts, I can see that, and yes, the only people I know who have
done well have been very nice people who everyone likes. I have also seen others drink too
much or take too many drugs to ever be booked again.

I'm someone who plays fair and works on a
basis of morality and integrity ( and despite common perception you'll find that the
majority of the biz is like that.....

By your posts, I can see that, and yes, the only people I know who have
done well have been very nice people who everyone likes. I have also seen others drink too
much or take too many drugs to ever be booked again.

It
really depends on who you are sampling and how much of it and what you do with it. But
even then - it just reduces slightly your chances of being caught out. It will come down
to what a judge decides if it does go to court. It's remains illegal to profit off
someone else's work. Even if that work isn't now owned by the creator.

Quote johnny h:My record company
ignore samples unless they are obvious, and they are actually quite a big company with a
lot to lose. Why? I don't know, they think its worth the risk and I'm not going to argue
with them.

I think the essential point is that music doesn't need any more
wallflowers, so if you absolutely need to do something then do it. Punk bands used to
steal their guitars remember. That does make you a criminal its true but real artists
aren't bound by the same rules as mere mortals.

Good to know that an esteemed organ such as SOS is not only, by dint
of this thread, allowing - nay, endorsing/encouraging - theft of intellectual property,
but our Johnny, it now seems, endorses physical theft.

Oh, happy days.

I'd like to ask Johnny a question. What distinguishes someone who knows a few
guitar chords so steals a guitar ... or someone who wants to use someone else's work and
talent and recording and just arbitrarily samples that (and the investment that went into
making that recording) from a "mere mortal"?

My daughter is not a shabby
classical violinist and has a future. Is it ok that she should steal a Guarneri (a Strad
would be out of the question of course)? By your reckoning, that would seem to be
acceptable, no?

And maybe, next time we're in the violin emporium, she should
maybe pilfer a Vuillaume bow ... y'know, just slip it into her violin case when no-one's
looking. It would be easy - it would f'ck the emporium's profits, maybe put them out of
business but...

That all seems reasonable by your logic it seems.

Are you saying, Johnny, that (ahem) "artists" are somehow 'superior' and somehow exempt
from the law compared with "mere mortals" such as, for example, I dunno, nurses or a brain
surgeon or even a humble 'lollipop lady' leading children to safety on busy roads on their
way to school ... or the chaps who empty your bins, whatever ... you know - people who
abide by the law? What a load of total arse gravy!

You have excelled yourself
at (once again) expressing personal opinion as an "essential point" AND, rather
intriguingly, endorsed intellectual copyright AND physical theft.

And maybe, next time we're in the violin emporium, she should maybe
pilfer a Vuillaume bow ... y'know, just slip it into her violin case when no-one's
looking. It would be easy - it would f'ck the emporium's profits, maybe put them out of
business but...

That all seems reasonable by your logic it seems.

Are you saying, Johnny, that (ahem) "artists" are somehow 'superior' and somehow exempt
from the law compared with "mere mortals" such as, for example, I dunno, nurses or a brain
surgeon or even a humble 'lollipop lady' leading children to safety on busy roads on their
way to school ... or the chaps who empty your bins, whatever ... you know - people who
abide by the law? What a load of total arse gravy!

It was obviously tongue in cheek.

I don't steal guitars or think its right. I have defended the protection of
intellectual property here many times before. Please don't use the phrase 'arse gravy' -
it really is a very unpleasant image.

Back to the original topic, the scope of
the music is important. If its going on soundcloud only, its probably fine. Same for a
vinyl release. If its a hit and you getting big sync offers the risk is too big.

I do think if a fair deal is possible then you should go for it. I know artists
who have been blatantly sampled by big acts and then cut out of any royalties because the
big artists can pay for bigger lawyers and rerecording of the sample. It helps to have a
music lawyer you can talk to about these things - they will have a reasonable idea whether
the person / company you are dealing with will be fair and ready to negotiate.

Quote hollowsun: Good to know
that an esteemed organ such as SOS is not only, by dint of this thread, allowing - nay,
endorsing/encouraging - theft of intellectual property, but our Johnny, it now seems,
endorses physical theft.

I
can't speak for Johnny H or his record company's ethical or moral values, or indeed their
commercial practices, but I have made the position and view of Sound On Sound on this
matter very clear earlier in this thread.

Everything else is the personal
opinions of the individual forum users and, by signing up to the forums, they take full
responsibility for those opinions and any advice they offer.

Needless to say,
if this thread becomes abusive it will be removed, but I would hope that a calm and well
reasoned case can be made here that might prove more positive in changing attitudes to see
the value in repsecting copyright.

The inclusion of a smiley emoticon or something might have
helped make it more obvious for the hard of understanding (such as myself!). I
believe it would also benefit a very public and commercial forum such as this if it had
been made abundantly clear that you were not, in fact, advocating IP and physical theft
and that your comment WAS actually tongue in cheek (it's also all too easy to say
something contentious and then backtrack saying "What?! It was just a joke!").

A lot gets lost in the dull exchange of text (plus it's often hard to know when you, Mr
H, are delivering opinion as 'facts' or being humorous!).